On Monday 16 January 2012 11:51:14 Scott Wood wrote: > On 01/15/2012 01:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 12 January 2012 20:59:41 Scott Wood wrote: > >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c > >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c > >> > >> +#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST > >> +#define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST { CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE } > >> +#endif > > > > would this be better off in nand.h ? > > I'm trying to get away from the model where the NAND subsystem pretends > to know anything about how a driver talks to its hardware (except when > the driver chooses to use a common NAND function that uses things like > IO_ADDR_R/W). For eLBC it probably makes more sense to specify the > chipselect rather than the address (we have to search for the former > based on the latter), though that's a separate change that can happen on > its own now that the connection to subsystem code has been severed.
so the idea would be to let CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST and CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE die for devices that could care less ? and eventually obsolete CONFIG_SYS_MAX_NAND_DEVICE ? -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot